Surfacestations USHCN ratings in Google Earth

Surfacestations.org volunteer Gary Boden writes in with this contribution:

I’ve attached a Google Earth KML file for all of the USHCN stations with the CRN ratings you assigned as color-coded symbols. Colors match the Excel spreadsheet scheme (CRN-1 = blue, CRN-2 = green, CRN-3 = yellow, CRN-4 = orange, CRN-5 = red) and closed stations with no rating = white. All unsurveyed stations are marked by a symbol (question mark in a circle). A click on the icon shows the USHCN number and name of the station. As far as I can tell it represents the data correctly, but you might check a few

stations.

My sincere thanks to Gary for this effort, it will make finding the unsurveyed stations easier.

Along the lines of the surfacestations project, the Fall 2008 NOAA Cooperative Observer Newsletter has been published. (PDF) And it is chockfull of station and observer photos. Perhaps someone can take a moment to cross check and see if any of the featured stations are USHCN?

80 thoughts on “Surfacestations USHCN ratings in Google Earth”

So the next question is if you used only the blue and green surface sites, CRN 1 & 2 which would denote quality measurement sites free from manmade bias, to create temperature records – How would this compare to the alternatives?

The dots are definitely concentrated near urban (or newly urbanized!) areas.
What’s more troubling of course, is that Hansen’s 500 km “averaging” of every nearby thermometer means that cooler stations (those NOT significantly inside every heat bubble of every county seat) are “averaged up” because other stations ARE hotter by 3-7 degrees F. And no stations are ever “below average” to compensate.
So, with cooler stations reported as hotter, and even hotter stations still biased even more by being badly sited and surrounded by new interferences, aren’t satellite temperatures the only accurate ones?
Oh. Wait. Thiose don’t show global warming, do they?
(Are the latest Oct 2008 satellite temperatures out yet?)

Re NOAA Coop observers: Nice to see all these observers getting awards for (in some cases) decades of service.
Re Color-coded map: Gary, good job! Do I have to have Google Earth to use your map? Never had much luck downloading that on my 2000 o.s.

LOL… from looking at the map one will immediately see most of the red dots are in urban or near urban areas. Little wonder why the temperatures are climbing from UHI. But to hear it from Hansen and his researchers CO2 is the culprit.

“A click on the icon shows the USHCN number and name of the station.”
I assum that icon refers to the station location marker. Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but nothing happens when I click on any marker.

How are these stations averaged? Most seem to be in industrial or urban areas, which ususally show greater increases. Ten stations near a UHI don’t tell you a lot more than one station there.
With large areas ‘unstationed’, how do the powers that be interpolate the results?

Not a very uniform spread across the country. Vast areas with nothing and some areas blanketed. You’d think they could have done something to have a uniform spread of high quality stations – or perhaps you wouldn’t.

Phillip,
It looks like a lot of black markers (?) of stations that haven’t been surveyed. Other than Texas, it seems there is pretty decent coverage. I think when more stations are surveyed, we’ll see more red dots.

Following up on a recent comment of mine…
Looking at the KML, I see the coastal Maine station at NASB is not listed.
The NASB station is the main NOAA/NWS site for south coastal Maine.
Talking with the public affairs officer at NASB will confirm these facts. He
says the live streaming buoy data is about 1000x as dense as the data
feed from the NASB station. I do not know about the buoy data, but he
seemed sure there was a great deal of it.

I hope this map will inspire more volunteers to get out there and survey stations, especially folks in the heartland.
The colored pins are the stations rated by Anthony as of mid-September. I’ve done several of the closed stations since then from historical data and have been in contact with people and organizations associated with more closed station sites. There’s much that can be done electronically to chase down this information.
Anthony – one of the 75 year award stations is in Kingston, RI. It’s a CRN-2 rated station and has had a very stable history.

OT and therefore you may want to delete; but I thought this article on the British naturalist David Bellamy might interest you. A warning to any scientist on the perils of not singing the party song:http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
The BBC is nothing if not consistent: their Michael Crichton obit yesterday stated that:
“his reputation suffered in 2005 when he was chided by members of the US Congress for his scepticism over climate change.”
If 60% of Brits really are GW sceptics, the blame certainly won’t lie at the BBC’s door.

Simply amazing, and the network seems to stop at the water’s edge, and the Canada and Mexico borders; and this is supposed to be a scientific sampling of the entire planet.
No wonder so much faith is placed in what shows up in ice cores from Vostock Station, where the “climate” is so non typical, and about as close to outer space as you can get, with both water and CO2 snow falling at times. Now that has to be a good location to monitor what is happening all over the globe.
Which about sums up why I maintain that Hansen’s GISStemp Anomaly Graph, is a graph of GISStemp anomalies; and should not be construed to mean anything that is related to anything that is not plotted on that graph. It doesn’t have a temperature scale, since nobody knows just what the zero anomaly temperature was either since it its the average of “some sort of measurment” over some time frame of a number of years.
It is too bad that the lay press, and the general public, and politicians, somehow imagine that this is actually a graph of the mean global temperature; or even the mean global surface temperature; or the mean global lower atmophere temperature or any other actual connection with the real planet.
No point on the graph was ever measured at any actual place by anyone at any specific time; it is all computer generated numbers from some presumably measured input data set; to which some secret algorithm is applied. It’s a ritual that has kept Hansen and co in cheeseburgers at taxpayer expense for who knows how many years.
But if you ever have a use for a GISStemp anomaly number; you know who has some, and comes up with a new one for the public at least once per year; and what is his annual budget for his department that performs this meaningless ritual.
Even if you actually could measure the global mean surface temperature; which you can’t, it is still a meaningless ritual, because it isn’t linked in any useful way to heat flows into or out of planet earth; and each different type of terrain, has its own set of important thermal processes that relate to local temperatures in completely different ways.
Heck even the part of the globe that is the surface ranges from sea level (about 73%) to minus a few hundred metres, and as high as more than 8 km, which isn’t exactly stratosphere, but isn’t really lower troposphere either.

To Gary Boden,
Some of the stations in Kansas have survey data at surfacestations.com but are not rated??: Saint Francis, Oberlin 1E, Norton 9SSE, Hays 1S, Anthony, Coldwater, Ashland, Minneapolis. For what it is worth, Larned was surveyed two months after it went inactive and Medicine Lodge has been inactive for a while.

To Gary Boden
Just to be sure you have way more information than you wanted, There is also a St Francis (as opposed to Saint Francis) It is a rain gauge a few miles NW of Saint Francis, Ks and Saint Francis station. There is also a weather station west of Norton Kansas, located beside a ranger station in a state park.

To those complaining of the urban located weather stations being hotter due to some mythical idea of UHI.
This is conclusive proof of Human Caused CO2 global warming. The facts are these:
1. More human beings in a smaller space = more CO2 exhaled
2. More cars, trucks, busses and other vehicles pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. More pets in a smaller space generating CO2
4. More garbage decomposing in small areas called dumpsters generating the pollutant
5. More power plants spewing CO2
I could go on but the proof is there.
Cue announcer with deep voice who says quietly….
The person writing this was not harmed in any way by critical thought during its production.
Mike

The only one out so far is RSS .
Coolest October since 2002, according to this source.
Note that RSS is now working on version 3.2. If you use the link on the “Resources” page (see tool bar at top of this thread), it will take you to version 3.1, which only goes to September. You can get to the new one simply by replacing the “2” with a “1” in the URL.
Anthony, if you see this, you might want to change the link on your Resources page.
FWIW, I did a comparison for each month between 3.1 and 3.2 since 2000. It does not materially change the trend from there. I didn’t check form 1979, although according to RSS’s web site, there shoudn’t be a big difference starting from there either.

OT but within the theme of this blog. I found this on Drudge Report. Probably Anthony has already seen this himself, or been told of it, but I thought I would post it. This is on the ‘record low cyclonic activity’ in the Pacific and Atlantic basins of the Northern Hemisphere. The graphs use ACE as a measurement. 2008 NH ACE was 73% of average. So much for Al Gore’s claim of Global Warming causing more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes.http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
I’m not statistically inclined or anything of the like, so those of you who are (including Anthony) it would be interesting to see a post and/or comments on this.

So, what does Hansen’s magic formula do when it reaches the “edge of the world”?
Forget specific siting distribution inequalities, and the complete lack of data coming from MOST of the American continent’s interior.
Assume that the various thermometers are actually recording temperature accurately,
and assume that records are taken at the same time every day,
assume that Hansen is actually using all of the data he gets – rather than throwing out measurements he dislikes.
Clearly, he is using the cooler (more accurate!) used-to-be-farm-and-woodlands thermometers around each city and town (BTW, what is the minimum size of town that produces a .25 degree heat “islet”?) to “average down” the center of city/center of airport measurements.
But, he IS concentrating his measurements in the East Coast (ME-all-the-way-to-Florida) regions, the Great Lakes region (mostly south of Chicago!), and two small regions around Baton Rouge and Houston. Out west, a belt down through Denver, Colorado Springs, north AZ, NV (Las Vegas is picked up) down to San Diego. The last belt goes right down the west coast – picking up every heat source from Vancouver through San Diego.
And every erg we create is ultimately rejected as heat. (Coastal nuclear plants are the only energy source he does not measure, since Hansen ignores the ocean where they discharge 65% of their total heat load. Even the energy in gasoline ends up as a heat load: air friction, brake friction, engine heat, exhaust heat, or radiator heat. )
Which brings up the boundary question:
If a mid-continent thermometer in a cornfield in KS is averaged out by 15 nearby thermometers, we get a very accurate “background” trend for that one station over time. No problem.
If that cornfield-in-KS thermometer is near a city thermometer (2 to 5 degrees ABOVE background), the city thermometer’s resulting temperature goes down – but apparently NOT down to “background” (or does it ???? Would Hansen be that honest? Er, accurate.)
However, EACH mid-cornfield temperature 500 km around that city goes up – by some unknown amount inside Hansen’s formulas.
What happens when there are MANY “city-center” thermometers at a border (San Diego is next to a very large urban island to the south – and few nearby thermometers to the immediate mountainous northwest that are either much hotter OR much colder than the San Diego valleys, and LA has no measurements to the west of Malibu, but hundreds of individual heat islands to the west and north. San Francisco has the Bay – but then Oakland’s heat island, a mountainous region that is unpopulated, then the VERY hot and comparably unpopulated central valley. (temperatures can be 110 F degrees in the valley, and 64 degrees only 30 miles west at the Pacific coast. The same rule CANNOT be applied to every border thermometer from San Diego to Vancouver – each city is different.
But Hansen doesn’t measure that coastal (water) temperature at all – yet apparently “corrects” the heat island-affected measurements inside SFO and Oakland by the extremely hot central valley thermometers. Or does he? (Up north, the summer winds in CA are from the cold coast waters inland to the hot central valleys – usually. Down south, usually, the winds are from teh cold coastal water inland, but these reverse irregularly with the Santa Anna’s.)
One more example of a completely “wrong” correction: On the east coast, New Jersey has many isolated independent heat islands to the WEST of the herd of coastal thermometers (every one of which is in a heat island itself), but no thermometers at sea – east (up wind) of the prevailing coastal summer winds, but downwind of the regular weather fronts coming from the west. Simple “count every-thermometer-within-500 km is dead wrong – half the time.
So, how does Hansen correct for geography – when every station needs it own algorithim of “find the baseline”, “find the local temperature”, “calculate the heat island effect – at THAT station at THAT season for the winds of THAT particular day”, and then finally “calculate the “surface temperature plot.”
Or does he do each of these steps already? He might be. Right?

To those complaining of the urban located weather stations being hotter due to some mythical idea of UHI.
This is conclusive proof of Human Caused CO2 global warming. The facts are these:
1. More human beings in a smaller space = more CO2 exhaled
2. More cars, trucks, busses and other vehicles pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. More pets in a smaller space generating CO2
4. More garbage decomposing in small areas called dumpsters generating the pollutant
5. More power plants spewing CO2
I could go on but the proof is there.

Your facts do provide good evidence that CO2 emissions are increasing, but you provide no evidence that enough CO2 is being releases to significantly overcome the fact that the CO2 IR absorption band is nearly saturated. Without that, extra CO2 won’t result in significant extra warming.
A couple quibbles: 1) Earth is not getting smaller. It is getting larger, albeit rather slowly. 4) CO2 is plant food, it’s not a pollutant until its concentration reaches a point where it causes health problems. 5) Take that up with China, the US and Europe isn’t building much lately.

Anthony
OT but I think important. There is an official “office of the president elect” site, http://www.change.gov/ that asks for :
“Open Government
It’s Your America: Share Your Ideas
The story of the campaign and this historic moment has been your story. Share your story and your ideas, and be part of bringing positive lasting change to this country.”
in the link:
“Tell us your story and the issues that matter most to you. Share with us your concerns and hopes. ”
It may all be political and useless, but it may be that the man wants to listen. Actually the internet is a marvelous tool for somebody who wants to listen.
It would be good if many rational skeptic entries are submitted on AGW. Not polemic, but thoughtful. ( Ideally by somebody registered as a contributor to his campaign of course, we have to be realists)

Off Topic
Has anyone noticed yet?
Because it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince people that we are suffering global warming in an ice age the new tune for “Alternative Energy” is the “We run out of oil in 20 years” line. I don’t know how good the science behind this one is yet but it will be interesting to watch the pundits tango their way from one bandwagon to the next.

AAAAARGHHH! NOOOOOOO! (And other comments.)
And at the same time they put 80% of our oil off limits. And make exploration utterly unprofitable.
(The more I see of the upcoming appointment picks the sicker I feel.)This is our last dance
This is our last dance
This is ourselves under pressure

from the link provided beforehttp://www.change.gov/agenda/energyenvironment/
the only thing about CO2, no links:
“Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.”
It seems to me that there is no apriori ready made detailed program. 2050 is far enough away.
Cap and trade will be stopped by current economic realities, all ready a link from Jennifer’s page points to that:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.YTOC9grPB8&refer=home
“- President-elect Barack Obama may pursue legislation early next year to speed a transition to an economy fueled by renewable energy sources and delay a fight on climate change until the economy improves. ”
So there will be time to educate him, and maybe the weather will do that for us more efficiently if it keeps cooling.

OT
ARCTIC SEA ICE AT HIGHEST LEVEL IN 7 YEARS!
That was quick!
I couple of days ago I predicted Arctic sea ice would reach the highest level in at least seven years – within one week (by Nov. 12).
It’s already happened!http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

I thought I would climb out of my cage and write to my Member of Parliament, Nick Hurd. http://www.nickhurd.com/about
Dear Mr Hurd,
First things first. You should know that I do not accept the IPCC conclusions about AGW and I certainly do not accept that the Conservatives were at all sensible in supporting the Climate Change Bill. This is because continuing and rigorous scientific research is unequivocally demonstrating that the predictions produced from IPCC computer modelling are not being supported by observational data around the globe.
You will see below, a link to a 4th November letter sent to Chairman Dingell of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515-6115 by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Economics, College of Management & Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2M5. The letter is in response to a request for additional information by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response.to.Dingell.EAQ.pdf
Professor McKitrick gave testimony to the Committee in June 2008. http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/#new
You will see that the professor enjoys a great reputation for intellectual honesty and I would urge you to familiarise yourself with his work and bring it to the attention of your senior colleagues. Yes, the science is complicated and difficult to understand, but I would expect that any politician who is representing his voters, should have a very good scientific grasp of the facts, if he is voting in the Commons on scientific matters, that affect our economy.
The simple fact that global temperatures have cooled to 1979 values, should prompt you to take note of the consequences of your actions. AGW is not supported by the evidence and recklessly hoping that that “inconvenient truth” can be hidden under a tissue of mendacious calumnies will not serve to stop your voters considering their options at the next election.
Yours truly,
Perry Debell
Everyone is entitled to write to my MP, if they so desire. Email from overseas will brighten his days. hurdn@parliament.uk

A bit OT
There they go again. From ScienceDaily:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030144618.htmConclusive Proof That Polar Warming Is Being Caused By HumansNow, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence.
Let me guess — by updated this means adjusted temperature data and of course the models are probably heavily weighted in favor of greenhouse gases affecting change.
And the beat goes on…

OT
ARCTIC SEA ICE AT HIGHEST LEVEL IN 7 YEARS!
That was quick!
I couple of days ago I predicted Arctic sea ice would reach the highest level in at least seven years – within one week (by Nov. 12).
It’s already happened!http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

According to http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv it isn’t quite:
Nov 6:
2008: 9354219
2004: 9362500
Ah – for Nov 5:
2008: 9250781
2004: 9255625
So highest for one day by about 0.05%. One step forward, two steps back. 🙂 Three steps, actually. Maybe it’ll go 5 forward today. All well within measurement error, I’m sure.

Crichton believed that there was AGW. However, he felt that the AGW component was far smaller than touted by the climate hysterics so pervasive in politics and the press. He also felt that there were far more important world problems requiring science and expenditure than massive efforts focused to stop the anthropic component of any putative warming cycle. He correctly characterized the environmental movement as a religion and lamented the lack of an objective scientific approach to deal with problems like pollution, etc.

Hey Anthony, it’s been a while.
In response to Thomas L’s question (second comment), I’m thinking that maybe it’s time to run OpenTemp on the best stations again. It’s been almost a year and many more stations have now been surveyed.
I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a list of the best stations. That is, those that have a CRN rating of 1 or 2 and are in appropriate rural locations. I could run the analysis, compare to GISTEMP for the USA48, provide my code, etc.
It would be interesting to see how GISTEMP compares to historical climate based on the best stations (for the USA48). Your readers might be interested. Would you consider posting the results? I’m not even looking for a link or anything — I’m just offering to help.

The BBC is nothing if not consistent: their Michael Crichton obit yesterday stated that: “his reputation suffered in 2005 when he was chided by members of the US Congress for his scepticism over climate change.”

Fairly mild criticism, compared to some of the nastiness coming from the greens. Man, they hated him! It’s really pretty interesting that the left doesn’t have enough to talk about (what with the rise of the new Celtic messiah – btw, is O’Bama really Irish?) without smearing the reputation of Crichton. It says a lot about the man’s (Crichton’s) effectiveness.

What do the CRN-1 and CRN-2 stations show for historical temperature trend (without manipulation of the data, just simple averages)? How does that compare to Hansen’s results? THAT information is the seller. Yes, the dots show how bad much of the network is, but in the end people want to know what the best situated/maintained stations’ average trend shows for historical temperature, compared to what Hansen says. Has anyone compiled this?

Evan and Anna,
Evan, Thanks for the applause – It was written tongue in cheek. The only statements there that are totally inaccurate are the “myth of UHI” and just those five (true) statements as being proof of AGW. I think I wanted to show how easily someone can be convinced of something given just a few isolated facts.
Anna, I appreciate your attempt to correct some bad thinking, but I knew it was lousy logic when I wrote it. Sorry about the bad humor!
Mike

Ric,
Whoops sorry Anna, it was Ric who wrote the piece “correcting” my pontifications. I was just trying to have a bit of fun….Let me get my second cup of coffee…Teach me to type in an early morning haze!
MJB

Despite recent coverage in this blog, the 4 out-of-compliance temp. stations
in Orange County, California, are not included on the map. All would be
in the “way out of compliance” category.
The recent mortgage meltdown was caused in part by incorrect application of
mathematics. The line went line ‘If we assume a Gaussian distribution of
events…’ but that was never true because many people were deadbeats and
were given mortgages they NEVER could repay. A skewed, non-random sample
was used to construct models for securitization pools. It all collapsed because
of an invalid mathematical assumption.
This map indicates the same sort of error applies to pro-AGW arguments, at
least in the US. No conclusions can be draw from a pool of stations that has
obvious geographic and thermal skew. The selection bias overwhelms the
signal.

DocWat (16:18:55) :
I tried to survey OLATHE 3E station in Kansas but could not find it. Instead there was a relatively new (5 year old) sub division where it was supposed to be. I found the manager’s name in the white pages and left a message 2 weeks ago but my call has never been returned. I even knocked on his door but no one was home. He lives in a farm home surrounded by new sub divisions about a mile away from the original GPS coordinates. I imagine he once owned that land and the station has either been moved to his farmstead or decommissioned.
Would it be possible to Google Earth the un-surveyed stations to make them eaiser to find? I am new to the GE tool and do not have the skills to do it myself on a large scale. But, I have mapped two other near by stations that I am now more motivated to survey. In fact, I plan to do one this afternoon and the other next week weather permitting.
Thanks for the effort Gary Boden. It is greatly appreciated.

Anthony,
If I understand correctly, GISS adjust temperature anomiles for stations by using an average of surrounding stations alogorithm. If this is the case, given the amount of CRN-4 and CRN-5 stations, would this mean that the datasets would have been over adjusted on the CRN-1 and CRN-2 stations and the temperature trends are biased towards warming?
Just wanting to check out the theory for sanity reasons.

OT – a most peculiar summary of a new study on ENN:http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/38598
what does it mean?
“A few UK scientists have done a smart thing; they’ve combined the proposals of G8 policymakers for combating climate change with actual data on the status of play in the carbon cycle. The resulting study (pdf) is interesting not only because of this highly useful approach but also because it focuses on atmospheric carbon dioxide and its impact on the environment in the far future.
If anything is beyond doubt, it is that making cuts in greenhouse gases won’t be any good if the longer term problem of atmospheric carbon dioxide gets ignored. Atmospheric carbon dioxide threatens to become a massive problem that will catch up with us at a speed way more dangerous than the man made carbon dioxide emission problems we’re facing at the moment, the scientists write in their study, published in the Environmental Research Letters”
I get sick to my stomach whenever I hear “combating climate change” and similar permutations without bothering to define climate change – the convolution above is the kind of summary that will be picked up by MSM…
the real issue seems to be the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere – time to review that again…

Never mind Gary. I just re-opened Google Earth and there are now little questions marks exactly where I had pin pointed the un-surveyed stations. The first time I loaded the data all I saw were the color coded teardrop baloons.
I guess that demonstrates my unfamiliarity with the tool.
Thanks again!

DocWat (16:18:55) :
Dan McCune (11:38:59) :
I think the Medicine Lodge one is still there, but the data is not used. I’m in the process of doing the Anthony location, but due to previous non-related difficulty I am not getting cooperation from the “cooperator”, and the thing is in his back yard under a tree next to his garage with a dog chained to it intermittently. Could be a source of CHI (canine effect).
I too, am unfamiliar with the process, and on my WUWT Labor Day pilgrimage to Independence erroneously photographed a USGS river guaging system. :<{ It was over 1/2 mile from the GE bubble. Pretty country for KS. Nice pictures! The one I need to get is about 1/2 mile north of town on the east side at the water pumping station. Don’t know when I’ll return, it’s 120 miles away. When my wife was informed I wasted our time she developed WHI (wife effect). The hot dog lunch over an open fire didn’t impress either.
Anthony, I don’t know if you could post really current updates at ss.o, otherwise, you folks let me know which you plan to do. I’m planning on taking the upper route (north of I70) through Oberlin, Norton, St. Francis etc. at Christmas when I have to visit the Outlaws in SW Nebraska.
I hope a vintage Garmin GPS 12 is accurate enough for everybody.

Tim Clark:
Ref: Wife Heat island Effect
Hmmmn. 120 mile side trip @ ~60 mph in mid-KS = 2 hrs out, 2 hours back.
I can waste (er, use) 4 hours going to the hardware store on most any Saturday morning.
Recommendation: tell her you went to the hardware store, but “didn’t find anything interesting, and came back home without spending anything.” End of wife heat island effect. Temporarily, at least. 8<)
I’ll spring for the gas at 65.00/barrel.
Robt

If you flip the color of the dots, it looks a lot like a political map. It is interesting that in addition to voting primarily on the left, people in Urban areas also can’t properly measure temperature.

If this is the case, given the amount of CRN-4 and CRN-5 stations, would this mean that the datasets would have been over adjusted on the CRN-1 and CRN-2 stations and the temperature trends are biased towards warming?
Probably. Not only that, but UHI is being severely lowballed because urban stations are judged by surrounding rural stations which are, themselves in severe violation.

Robert A Cook PE (17:25:49) : I’ll try that!
DocWat (07:53:57) :
You know I hadn’t been to the ss.o site for a while, it’s good to see that you and other folks (who know what they’re doing) are participating in Kansas. Did he not have the dog out? I went down the alley a while back and it didn’t sound too friendly (No, it wasn’t the fluffy pooch in the picture, this one could eat fluffy). I delivered newpapers as a child and developed a distinct fear of dogs.
“My wife and I spent about 20 minutes visiting
with the curator and his wife. Nice folks.”
I live in Wichita, but work in Anthony for the State Government. Had a little misunderstanding a few years ago. Some folks don’t appreciate good government. Hope he voted for B.O.
Have you done Norton, Oberlin or St Francis, or are the directions you gave from Google? I can probably get those done in one trip this Christmas. We’ll both have trouble doing the east part.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy